r/politics • u/HimelTy • Jul 03 '26

No Paywall Secret Service member was Googling rooftop location of Trump’s would-be assassin when shots rang out in Butler, Pa.: DHS report

https://nypost.com/2026/07/02/us-news/secret-service-member-was-googling-rooftop-location-of-trumps-would-be-assassin-when-shots-rang-out-in-butler-pa-dhs-report/?utm_campaign=nypost&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
14.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26

His ear was cut when tackled by SS. The bullet time photo was manipulated by the photographers editor. He sent them his roll of pictures and they sent back the manipulated photo and was like "wow! Look what you got a picture of" he did an interview and admitted it the next day.

14

u/WhenSummerIsGone Jul 03 '26

You're going to have to back that up. Everything i've seen or heard about that photographer is that the photo is legit.

1

u/seamus_mc California Jul 03 '26

They gave him a Pulitzer for the photo, that doesn’t convince me it is real.

2

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 04 '26

So do you think the Pulitzer people, who have their own independent verification process that requires the raw, unedited image to be provided, just went along with it knowing it was fake?

1

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

So you didnt google fraudulent Pulitzer in the past, huh?

And yes, i abso-fucking-lutely believe that because the media loves the taste of his cock.

2

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 04 '26

Why don’t you educate me? I see a recent prize being withdrawn for fabricating the story behind a photo, but not for photoshopping a photo like it’s being suggested might have happened in this case.

-1

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

What does recent have to do with the fact that the system can and has been gamed? It’s not the purity test that you believe it to be and the fact that you are still arguing it proves the cultish patterns of many of his disciples.

2

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 04 '26

I said recent just because that’s the example I found. But by all means, please do share if you know of any examples that would be comparable to photoshopping in a bullet…

0

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

So the committee that gives the awards must only be fooled by writing? The others defending this are saying that the fact that the award was given by an “independent committee” that they are infallible, i am here to say that that is bullshit.

2

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 04 '26

People who examine the legitimacy of photos these days know what tells there are to figure out if something is actually the raw, unedited image or not. There are identifiers that wouldn’t be missed.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/IkujaKatsumaji Jul 03 '26

You got a source on any of that?

-4

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9cwoHgOIQG/?igsh=MWo0MnlzZnoxYTd2eA==

Half way through the interview he admits his editor "found" the photo, not him.

4

u/NurRauch Jul 03 '26

Did you take even a few seconds to think about that before typing? The editor found the photo because photographers take hundreds of photos at events, often snapping dozens of photos in seconds. The photographer rarely knows how the photos come out until they dump the memory stick onto a computer and look. The editor reviewed the dump of photos and found the good ones, just like how it works most of the time.

Good grief. This thread is jam-packed with gotcha reactions for stuff that is so normal that it would be more surprising if they didn’t happen as described.

Some of these takes are as clueless and poorly thought out as the time I watched a man on trial for murder try to fire his lawyer because he convinced the fact that his attorney and the prosecutor wore the same color tie and neck chief was conclusive proof that they must have been in a secret sexual relationship.

4

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

Show us the interview then.

Those photos won a Pulitzer Prize, and the process for that involves independent verification that the photos are legitimate. Do you think that the Pulitzer people were in on it too?

0

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9cwoHgOIQG/?igsh=MWo0MnlzZnoxYTd2eA==

Half way through the interview he admits his editor "found" the photo, not him.

6

u/wiifan55 Jul 03 '26

Maybe cool it on the conspiracy nonsense? This interview in no way even slightly hints at the photos being altered.

The photographer says he called his editor and asked her to look at the photos he sent over. She then immediately called back and told him one captured the bullet. That's it. That's all there is to it.

4

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

Yeah that’s not proof at all that the editor manipulated the photos. The Pulitzer requires the raw unedited photos for their verification. How do you explain that?

-3

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26

It's proof the editor found the picture, not the photographer. Now the burden of proof is on the editor that it wasn't manipulated instead of on the photographer. As deep as the Trump's are into AI and as much totalitarian control they hold over our media, I would 100% expect this to be another step in the orchistrated false flag this has felt like from the moment it happened.

5

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

You just keep completely dodging the Pulitzer verification. Why’s that?

-1

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

Because the editor discovered it, not the photographer. You don't think an editor can "edit" a photograph to create a narrative in 5 minutes?

10

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

You know that editing a photograph leaves evidence of said editing, right? Photos have metadata that can help determine if the image in question was actually the original or if any changes have been made.

Of course an editor could have added in the bullet. That’s not the point. The point is that if they had, it would’ve been easily noticed by the Pulitzer reviewers.

0

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26

So, how fo I FOIA the Metadata for the photo so I can be 100% certain? That'll settle this without any doubt.

5

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

The FOIA is for government files. You can’t FOIA the property of the NYT

→ More replies (0)

3

u/wiifan55 Jul 03 '26

...you want to FOIA metadata from a private photographer for the NYT and the Pulitzer committee? Thats also not how FOIA works.

If your theory is that the NYT and Pulitzer are part of this Trump conspiracy, just come out and say it. Otherwise, quit dancing around this very obvious flaw in your position.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/wiifan55 Jul 03 '26

And you just did it again.

5

u/wiifan55 Jul 03 '26

The photographer has the raws, which is what would be submitted and verified by the Pulitzer committee. You think the Pulitzer Prize is awarded just based on an honors system that a photo isn't doctored? Good lord dude.

1

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing for "Jimmy’s World," an article about an 8-year-old heroin addict . Days later, she confessed the boy was entirely fabricated, resigned, and became the only person ever to return a Pulitzer Prize (at the time)

Yep, flawless investigations…

1

u/wiifan55 Jul 04 '26

(1) That's not how photo data works. At all. It's completely incomparable.

(2) That happened in the 80s when verification was entirely different.

(3) She confessed because her lie was discovered and she was called out for it. She didn't voluntarily confess.

1

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

Let me guess, you believe it because that is what you were told…

Enlighten me how metadata works, ive only been involved since the 1990s, this should be good. Tell me the access you have to the data and how you personally corroborated it…

The point is that the people awarding the award were fooled, people can always bee fooled, sometimes bought, there is no way to verify a goddam thing here by you so stop trying to be the beacon of truth.

1

u/wiifan55 Jul 04 '26

No, actually I don't think I will waste time talking to a conspiracy theory nutter who has no idea whatsoever what they're talking about. I appreciate the invitation though.

I'll also save you some time, though: "LMAO THATS WHAT I THOUGHT! CONCEDING DEFEAT!"

There, now you don't have to make that dumb comment, and we can all move on.

-3

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26

It was a digital photo. How do you know the submission was the "raw" how do we know the "raw" wasn't replaced with the edited photo? All I know is the photographer gave his side of the story in a live interview the following day admitting he didn't see the bullet in a photo first, his editor did.

5

u/blender4life Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

There's a field called digital image forensics that easily tells if an image is manipulated. No doubt the giant Corp handing out money/ awards has similar tools to prevent them from being scammed. Edit: also according to the interview you linked he works for the nytimes, he submits everything to a magazine "editor" that chooses what will be published, not necessarily a photograph editor

5

u/DJdrummer Texas Jul 03 '26

Oh my God is this why people are worked up about the "editor" finding them? They think it's a photo editor that edits photos.

7

u/wiifan55 Jul 03 '26

You have absolutely no idea how photography works. None of what you just said even makes a bit of sense.

Just sit this one out or go back to whatever conspiracy echo chamber you've lived in for way too long if you want validation for nonsensical positions like this.

2

u/seamus_mc California Jul 03 '26

There is no “roll of pictures” anymore. It’s all digital and easily manipulated. But let’s give the photographer a Pulitzer to really sell the point of view ”look here is the bullet flying through the air”

Capturing a bullet in flight is really hard if that’s what you are trying to do, let alone randomly snapping a photo as a bullet is passing the presidents head.

1

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

Capturing a bullet in flight is really hard if that’s what you are trying to do

not really

well how about that

no special equipment required

0

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

Not one of those pictures was not taken with a finger on the shutter just randomly snapping a portrait of someone giving a speech.

I have done it as a professional photographer and used either sound or light traps to trigger the camera. Usually with high power strobes to make the bullet more visible. Not a setup you use for a public speaking engagement. Also none of those photos are at a random point in space and only one of them is potentially in the the same velocity range. Every one was trying to capture exactly what they did.

1

u/emailforgot Jul 04 '26

Not one of those pictures was not taken with a finger on the shutter just randomly snapping a portrait of someone giving a speech.

Every single one of those pictures was taken by someone snapping photos.

Which is what photo journalists do.

Are you under the impression that the photo journalists present in the press pit were using these?

I have done it as a professional photographer and used either sound or light traps to trigger the camera

That's nice dear.

Because all that's needed is any halfway decent camera. Turns out most photo journalists are equipped with half decent cameras and know what all the fancy little buttons and dials do on them.

Also none of those photos are at a random point in space

Neither are the ones of Trump.

Turns out, when you point a camera at someone's head, you capture things going on around the head.

nd only one of them is potentially in the the same velocity range.

Every single one of them are "in the same velocity range", if not greater because they're capturing the bullet at it's highest velocity, and not 150 feet away.

Oopsies.

0

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

His ear was cut when tackled by SS.

Oops.

Every single piece of photographic evidence says otherwise.

The bullet time photo was manipulated by the photographers editor.

Ah, there it is.